or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple renews bid for U.S. ban on Samsung products
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple renews bid for U.S. ban on Samsung products

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
Apple on Thursday filed a motion to renew its ongoing bid to stop sales of Samsung products found to be infringing on three key utility patents, including the contentious '915 property for pinch-to-zoom functionality.

Apple v Samsung
A slide from the Apple v. Samsung trial


The motion comes after Apple successfully appealed a U.S. district court ruling that threw out a request to ban Samsung products which were found to infringe on Apple utility and design patents by the Apple v. Samsung jury in 2012.

In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered Judge Lucy Koh to reconsider Apple's case as it pertains to three utility patents for rubber-banding, tap-to-zoom, and pinch-to-zoom UI functions, but reaffirmed the jurist's denial of an injunction based on asserted design patents. As the official mandate for the CAFC's decision was issued on Thursday, Apple immediately filed its motion to renew.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Samsung could have stalled the proceedings by petitioning for a rehearing, but chose instead to focus its efforts on more important issues. Indeed, the products in question are now of little to no commercial value after being on the market for nearly two years.

Apple, too, appears to be prioritizing for the coming court battle, as it could have pushed harder for an injunction over its design patents.

Mueller believes the more important task at hand may be defining a standard for a "causal nexus" between infringement and irreparable harm. As applied to Apple's ongoing battle with Samsung, this causal nexus is vital for future injunction bids over asserted patents, like those involved in the two companies' second California court case scheduled to start in March of 2014.

As for the three patents-in-suit, Apple's '915 patent for pinch-to-zoom functionality is perhaps the most contentious as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has repeatedly cast doubt on its validity. In November, a PTO examiner found all claims of the patent invalid. The finding prompted Apple to file a notice of appeal with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an action also executed on Thursday.

Apple is requesting the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, headed by Judge Koh, renew injunction proceedings as soon as Jan. 30.

Apple Motion to Renew

post #2 of 37
The world is better off with Samsung in it.

Were 100% an Apple household, but this has become a company that relies on iterative updates that are knighted as innovative miracles by the overly emotional press and rabid sycophant fans. Bug-Ridden iOS7? Gold 4" iPhones? ITunes 11? AppleTV? Mavericks? Anybody who's been around Apple long enough can easily say that this is not Apple at its best and that they are capable of far greater things so considering the state of Apple products right now then I'd rather they shut up and eliminate the competition through killer products rather than lawsuits intended to thin down the competition.
post #3 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urkel View Post

The world is better off with Samsung in it.

Were 100% an Apple household, but this has become a company that relies on iterative updates that are knighted as innovative miracles by the overly emotional press and rabid sycophant fans. Bug-Ridden iOS7? Gold 4" iPhones? ITunes 11? AppleTV? Mavericks? Anybody who's been around Apple long enough can easily say that this is not Apple at its best and that they are capable of far greater things so considering the state of Apple products right now then I'd rather they shut up and eliminate the competition through killer products rather than lawsuits intended to thin down the competition.

whatever... Apple is the most innovative company there is for all mentioned above. Get a clue do-do bird

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply
post #4 of 37
I noted the AI article relies on quotes from a FOSSPtents blog. In the wrap-up and giving perhaps an indication of just how far Apple is stretching with this particular legal action Mueller stands firmly on Samsung's side, saying:

"Judge Koh could grant an injunction and subsequently grant a Samsung motion for a stay of enforcement. This would not be illogical at all under the circumstances in this case. If Judge Koh denied a stay, Samsung could ask the Federal Circuit to grant one. Whoever grants Samsung a stay, I repeat that in my opinion it's absolutely entitled to one. An enforceable injuntion over the '915 patent at this stage would be nothing but outright injustice."
(Note: The other two patents asserted by Apple, "tap-to-zoom" and "rubber-banding", are relatively worthless in his opinion if it matters)

Highly unusual for a pro-Samsung, Apple unfriendly stance from Mr, Mueller.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/27/13 at 4:08am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 37
More power to Apple.

1) They can afford it, and

2) it has zero effect on consumer perception - from a sales and popularity perspective. No one's going to cross off Apple gear from their Boxing Week list because they've issued briefs against some foreign company.

3) Litigiousness is in Apple's DNA. Which is the right attitude on their part, and which has buttressed their concern for the integrity of their product, design, and technologies since the first day of Apple as a company.
post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I noted the AI article relies on quotes from a FOSSPtents blog. In the wrap-up and giving perhaps an indication of just how far Apple is stretching with this particular legal action Mueller stands firmly on Samsung's side, saying:

"Judge Koh could grant an injunction and subsequently grant a Samsung motion for a stay of enforcement. This would not be illogical at all under the circumstances in this case. If Judge Koh denied a stay, Samsung could ask the Federal Circuit to grant one. Whoever grants Samsung a stay, I repeat that in my opinion it's absolutely entitled to one. An enforceable injuntion over the '915 patent at this stage would be nothing but outright injustice."
(Note: The other two patents asserted by Apple, "tap-to-zoom" and "rubber-banding", are relatively worthless in his opinion if it matters)

Highly unusual for a pro-Samsung, Apple unfriendly stance from Mr, Mueller.

 

if tap to zoom and rubber banding are relatively worthless, why does everyone use it?

Sometimes the most simple things are the most valuable.

post #7 of 37

Samsung might have copied the original iPhone, but they might sue Apple in the future for making bigger screen iPhones. After about 6 years of iPhone, most of them are similar just an improvement over the previous. Few months ago we saw 2 phones unveiled at the same time. 

Samsung copied it and made more of a variety of phones targeting a crowd not one person only. They have all kind of sizes, shape, colors with different features phones phablets tablets etc... 

The "unwevering" principle of one hand holding iPhone is total BS. I like apple products but I've been wishing for a bigger iPhone for couple of years now:(  Their focus should be on making awesome products not worry so much of what the competition is making.    

post #8 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

if tap to zoom and rubber banding are relatively worthless, why does everyone use it?

Sometimes the most simple things are the most valuable.

Mueller is talking about the worth of the patents and not of the functionality. Quicksort is not worthless but a patent for quicksort would be if it were granted today as any challenge would invalidate it on grounds of patentability.

post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urkel View Post

Bug-Ridden iOS7? Gold 4" iPhones? ITunes 11? AppleTV? Mavericks? Anybody who's been around Apple long enough can easily say that this is not Apple at its best and that they are capable of far greater things so considering the state of Apple products right now then I'd rather they shut up and eliminate the competition through killer products rather than lawsuits intended to thin down the competition.

I disagree. I think this is Apple at its best and I have been around Apple long enough to tell. Apple is a very different beast now than it was and while you certainly are free to think that Apple of old was 'better', today's Apple products and services are way ahead of anything seen in the past. If you remember anything pre OSX you know what bug ridden meant. I agree that both IOS and Maverics have problems and perhaps the most stable OS was Snow Leopard but I think you are too quick to lash out and I think your expectations are too high.

As has been pointed out countless times here, Apple, like everybody else iterates and improves, step by step. Revolutionary new products have always been few and far between.
post #10 of 37
Apple, newsflash:

Your products are good enough that you don't have to sue your competitors to succeed.

Stop generating ill-will in the tech community by suing your competitors. Compete with them. Make better products. There's room for more than one player in this market.

Sincerely,
-Disillusioned Apple user.
post #11 of 37
Those who care about their IP, and thus the integrity of their product, are entitled to pursue claims relating to it.

This is an Apple attitude and it's served them quite well.
post #12 of 37
The anti-Apple Troll Brigade is out again this morning. Wow.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 37
Ill-will from the tech community?

Apple can barely meet demand for their products. As far as the "tech community" goes, I'm not sure what this term is supposed to reference. Developers are making money and users want Apple gear. At any rate, Apple doesn't seem to be suffering from any alleged "ill-will" from areas of the market or the industry that actually matter.
post #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The anti-Apple Troll Brigade is out again this morning. Wow.
You mean the PAID "anti-Apple Troll Brigade", don't you?

Stick it to 'em, Apple! Meke them squirm!
post #15 of 37
Originally Posted by Urkel View Post
Were 100% an Apple household, but

 

Just…. STOP. I don’t even need to read the rest to know who and what you are.

 
…this has become a company that relies on iterative updates that are knighted as innovative miracles by the overly emotional press and rabid sycophant fans.

 

WOW, I was completely right. Shut up and go away.

 
Bug-Ridden iOS7?

 

Nope.

 
Gold 4" iPhones?

 

Exist.

 
ITunes 11?

 

Is music software.

 
AppleTV?

 

Streams media.

 
Mavericks?

 

Is their desktop OS.

 
…eliminate the competition through killer products rather than lawsuits intended to thin down the competition.

 

How about you shut up and never return to this website?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urkel View Post

The world is better off with Samsung in it.

Were 100% an Apple household, but this has become a company that relies on iterative updates that are knighted as innovative miracles by the overly emotional press and rabid sycophant fans. Bug-Ridden iOS7? Gold 4" iPhones? ITunes 11? AppleTV? Mavericks? Anybody who's been around Apple long enough can easily say that this is not Apple at its best and that they are capable of far greater things so considering the state of Apple products right now then I'd rather they shut up and eliminate the competition through killer products rather than lawsuits intended to thin down the competition.

 

Apple has no problem with competition. They DO, however, have a problem with industry thieves.

 

As for lawsuits, as mentioned before, the one against Samsung is just one of MANY that Apple has pursued vigorously since Day 1 of the company. 

 

Look up Quicktime and San Francisco Canyon, for instance.

 

Wait. Allow Me . . .

 

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Apple_v._San_Francisco_Canyon

post #17 of 37

This is such an easy argument to win, If Apple doesn't innovate first and allow Samsung to copy, then consumers will get utterly useless mundane dog crap like the Samsung watch. Lets see how quickly Samsung copies Apple's new watch.....remember the Samsung engineer who said (about the watch), "We work on this soooooooooo long" and it was a monumental flop. That my friends, is Samsung innovation at its finest!

post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple has no problem with competition. They DO, however, have a problem with industry thieves.

As for lawsuits, as mentioned before, the one against Samsung is just one of MANY that Apple has pursued vigorously since Day 1 of the company. 

Look up Quicktime and San Francisco Canyon, for instance.

Wait. Allow Me . . .

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Apple_v._San_Francisco_Canyon

How does one steal one's own work? Use it without permission yes but thieves they are not.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urkel View Post

The world is better off with Samsung in it.

Were 100% an Apple household, but this has become a company that relies on iterative updates that are knighted as innovative miracles by the overly emotional press and rabid sycophant fans. Bug-Ridden iOS7? Gold 4" iPhones? ITunes 11? AppleTV? Mavericks? Anybody who's been around Apple long enough can easily say that this is not Apple at its best and that they are capable of far greater things so considering the state of Apple products right now then I'd rather they shut up and eliminate the competition through killer products rather than lawsuits intended to thin down the competition.

Troll much?  You hit all the basic tenants of trolling.  You own apple products (as somehow this makes you an authority),  Apple does not innovate anymore, and apple should just concentrate on products rather that suing your employer.

post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I noted the AI article relies on quotes from a FOSSPtents blog. In the wrap-up and giving perhaps an indication of just how far Apple is stretching with this particular legal action Mueller stands firmly on Samsung's side, saying:

"Judge Koh could grant an injunction and subsequently grant a Samsung motion for a stay of enforcement. This would not be illogical at all under the circumstances in this case. If Judge Koh denied a stay, Samsung could ask the Federal Circuit to grant one. Whoever grants Samsung a stay, I repeat that in my opinion it's absolutely entitled to one. An enforceable injuntion over the '915 patent at this stage would be nothing but outright injustice."
(Note: The other two patents asserted by Apple, "tap-to-zoom" and "rubber-banding", are relatively worthless in his opinion if it matters)

Highly unusual for a pro-Samsung, Apple unfriendly stance from Mr, Mueller.

You left out what he said before that, that if judge Koe were to grant a stay it would stay the entire case to including the damages case.

Basically the judge goofed and did not stay the case, at the proper time.  He also says that it makes more sense to grant Apple an injunction too then a stay for samsung.

 

Quote:
 Theoretically, the proceedings could be stayed with respect to this patent even before an injunction issues. But then the whole case including the damages part would be stayed, and this would delay forever the appeal (on the merits) that last month's limited damages retrial was meant to pave the way for. So it would actually make more sense to grant Apple an injunction over this patent but to also grant a Samsung motion for a stay of its enforcement. This way there would be a final and appealable ruling on the merits, but unjust harm would be avoided.

As for tap to zoom and rubber banding thats not what he said. He said that by itself these  patents would not alter buying decisions but groups of them together do, and that samsung already has work arounds in place.  So the question is are samsungs workarounds enough to get them off the hook.

Also he said that he would prefer having rubber banding back.  Its a nice feature.  I bet samsung would too.

Quote:
 More than six months ago the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) affirmed the key claims, including the claim asserted in this action, of Apple's '381 rubber-banding ("overscroll bounce") patent. Samsung stopped providing that functionality to end users roughly two years ago, as a result of Apple's patent enforcement. If Apple was unable in any given major market to enforce this patent, I believe Samsung would re-enable the feature because it really does make a difference, in a subconscious but nevertheless important way (the overscroll effect avoids the situation in which the user instinctively feels that the device is not responding and presses harder) -- and it's a nice visual effect. This is again not the kind of feature that would influence purchasing decisions all by itself, but all other things being equal, I would certainly prefer a touch device that does have rubber-banding, and a multiplicity of such features would have an important effect on the user experience and the perceived quality of products

And for the Pinch to zoom there is still disagreement that samsungs workaround does not still infringe.

 

Quote:
 

The '915 pinch-to-zoom API patent raises the most interesting issues, and if Apple obtains a permanent injunction over this one, we may actually see a subsequent contempt proceeding in which Samsung would have to defend its purported workaround against claims by Apple that it is not a workaround but still an act of infringement.

The scope of this patent may be just as narrow as that of the '163 patent if Samsung's workaround is indeed a workaround, a fact that is in dispute for the time being. Last year, Samsungclaimed that it had a workaround in place that provided end users with the same functionality but nevertheless steered clear of infringement of the '915 patent


Edited by Mechanic - 12/27/13 at 7:50pm
post #21 of 37
Conversely: Apples products are good enough to protect from others that copy in order to succeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post

Apple, newsflash:

Your products are good enough that you don't have to sue your competitors to succeed.

Stop generating ill-will in the tech community by suing your competitors. Compete with them. Make better products. There's room for more than one player in this market.

Sincerely,
-Disillusioned Apple user.
post #22 of 37
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
Apple, newsflash:

Your products are good enough that you don't have to sue your competitors to succeed.

Stop generating ill-will in the tech community by suing your competitors. Compete with them. Make better products. There's room for more than one player in this market.

Sincerely,
-Disillusioned Apple user.

 

Zorinlynx, news flash: 

 

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

 

Stop posting about things you don’t understand until you learn what is actually being discussed. My list is not of what TO do when posting.

 

Sincerely,

Common Sense

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #23 of 37

Dear Common Sense,

 

Stop being a devoted fanboy to Apple. They are a company and although they create cool products, they do boneheaded things like needlessly sue competitors.

 

Sincerely,

Disillusioned Apple User

post #24 of 37
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post

needlessly sue competitors.

 

Dear zorinlynx,

 

That’s not for you to say. Create something for once in your life and see how you feel when someone steals it.

 

Sincerely,

Stop being a moron.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #25 of 37
Zorinlynx. You got it right. Apple should not sue or ban other competitors' products. Non Apple products flooded to the market are usually bought only by the extremes - (a) Wannabe Geeks and (b) simple users.
post #26 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinoyeto View Post

Zorinlynx. You got it right. Apple should not sue or ban other competitors' products. Non Apple products flooded to the market are usually bought only by the extremes - (a) Wannabe Geeks and (b) simple users.

Noob trolls. Oh my.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #27 of 37
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
Noob trolls. Oh my.

 

No, he’s sort of on the right side. He’s saying that there’s no point in suing because those products are only purchased by a fringe crowd in the first place.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, he’s sort of on the right side. He’s saying that there’s no point in suing because those products are only purchased by a fringe crowd in the first place.

Isn't that how Apple started out? Now look at them. It's best to nip it in the bud and not allow them the chance to flourish.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #29 of 37
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Isn't that how Apple started out? Now look at them.

 

Could you maybe stop with the posting entirely if you can’t do anything but strawmen?

 
It's best to nip it in the bud and not allow them the chance to flourish. 

 

No, we’re not going to support the “nipping in the bud” of the protection of intellectual property. Shut up.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Could you maybe stop with the posting entirely if you can’t do anything but strawmen?

No, we’re not going to support the “nipping in the bud” of the protection of intellectual property. Shut up.

Like you ever have anything positive to add. Apple did absolutely start that way, so why allow anyone the chance to grow. Are you really against suing to protect IP? Because that's what the OP is suggesting.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #31 of 37
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Like you ever have anything positive to add.

 

Hilarious. Lost long ago and can’t refute that point so you resort to this.

 
Apple did absolutely start that way, so why allow anyone the chance to grow.

 

Theft of intellectual property ⊈ growth.

 

Try again. You’ll get something right in your next several thousand posts, I’m sure.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Hilarious. Lost long ago and can’t refute that point so you resort to this.

Theft of intellectual property ⊈ growth.

Try again. You’ll get something right in your next several thousand posts, I’m sure.

It wouldn't necessarily mean that the theft of IP would continue, but if a company survives where others die out that company could turn around and kill the company it stole from originally. Though that is unlikely, stranger things have happened. One just never knows what the future may hold. How powerful was Xerox when they licensed their UI to Apple? Where are they now? One can't dismiss a competitor just because it used only by some geeks. How many discounted Apple for the similar reason? How wrong are those people now?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #33 of 37
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
How powerful was Xerox when they licensed their UI to Apple?

 

That’s funny, I thought for a second this sentence read “stole their UI”. But then I looked again and noticed it never did. How funny that is, it not being stolen, but rather licensed. 

 

Legally.

 

Without theft of intellectual property.

 

Even though Apple was small.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That’s funny, I thought for a second this sentence read “stole their UI”. But then I looked again and noticed it never did. How funny that is, it not being stolen, but rather licensed. 

Legally.

Without theft of intellectual property.

Even though Apple was small.

Because you've programmed yourself to automatically read my posts as anti Apple when in fact I'm defending their right and even encouraging them to protect their IP.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #35 of 37
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
in fact Im defending their right and even encouraging them to protect their IP.

 

Mmm…

 

Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Isn't that how Apple started out? Now look at them. [context break] Its best to nip it in the bud and not allow them [competitors to Apple] the chance to flourish.
 

Mea culpa. You’re right; that’s what you said. I apologize.

 

But it’s oh so subtle. In saying that–and the following–

 

Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
How powerful was Xerox when they licensed their UI to Apple? Where are they now?
 

you paint Apple as a bad seed. I’m more impressed by how well you did this than anything, so I’ll let it go. :lol:

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #36 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Mmm…

Mea culpa. You’re right; that’s what you said. I apologize.

But it’s oh so subtle. In saying that–and the following–

you paint Apple as a bad seed. I’m more impressed by how well you did this than anything, so I’ll let it go. lol.gif

You're forgiven lol. It's never my objective to paint Apple as a bad seed, most of my posts are when I disagree with what someone wrote, so while I might be anti someone's opinion I most certainly am not anti Apple. I'm actually a fan of Apple and at the risk of sounding like a troll I do actually have a iPod Touch and a iPad.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #37 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueDogRandy View Post

whatever... Apple is the most innovative company there is for all mentioned above. Get a clue do-do bird
So the guy just told you he uses Apple, but prefers Sammy and you start bashing and insulting? Wtf is wrong with you? Its a boring company with no skills, still making the same devices for years and years
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple renews bid for U.S. ban on Samsung products